The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1887-01-19


bill would derange both the internal and
foreign commerce of the country. After it
goes into operation corn will not in future
be carried from Kansas City to Atlanta at
the low rate heretofore prevailing, nor will
bacon or beef, or pork be carried from Chi
cago to Charleston at the rates heretofore
adopted. The increase in rates on the long
haul will necessarily to that extent cripple
the business of the country and diminish its
volume, and II will leave less Of profit to the
western producer. Goods will not be
shipped from Boston, or New York, or
Philadelphia, to the southern cities at as
low rate as has heretofore prevailed, and
to that extent the business of the country
must be crippled. BY giving the commits
sion discretionary power the bill arms it
with n power more dangerous than that
which is welded by any sovereign in Europe
where constitutional government prevails.
Mr.. Mitchell of Oregon said the people
from whom the demand for legislation on
this subject came did not desire to be in
vited to feast of Legislative egerdemain.
Never in his experience had he heard so
many different and strangely contradictory
constructions placed upon any measure as
those placed upon the long and short-haul
section. And those contradictory construc-
tons had been placed upon it by able con-
stitutional and statutory lawyers, both in
and out of the senate-by its friends as well
as its foes
Mr.. George of Mississippi said he had no
uOubu tudl lnt tHtCbOl VIC ltSlSldllOh NouIu
be to increase freight rates temporariy-not
because that was the Legitimate result of it,
but because the railroad companies would
make it the occasion of unnecessarily and
unjustly raising the rates in order to bring
the measure into disrepute
Mr.. Evarts of New York denounced the
bill as unconstitutional and as utterly in
consistent with the basis on which the Con-
stitution lodged in the federal government
jurisdiction over the subject of commerce.
Every decision OF the supreme court on TINS
SUBJECT had been 10 remove lnpeulnehts 10
commerce and to insist on absolute equal
lty But the pendlng measure would inter-
1ere win tne freedom ana equahty OF com
merce; ana the reasons whlch denied 10 the
states the power to do so We're also reasons
why the same power should be denied to
the federal government III was 1Or the inter
est OF the railroads. that commerce shoulu be
developed not restrained; that ltS Volume
should be increased and ITS freedom I'M
hampered' Inc speaker called attention TO
the opposition to the measure shown by
commerclal bodies throughout the country.
Mr.. Hoar OF massachusetts, SAD the move,
ment TO regulate Interstate commerce had
his hearty sympathy, but he objected to GER
tam PROVISIONS OF TINS Dill That the one (the
the cheapness OF transportation, and the
other (the pooling section) would destroy
the steadiness of the business by putting it
out of the power of the railroad TO prevent
railroad wars. He also objected that the
bill gave the proposed commission power
hali-leglslatlve and half-ludlclal 1t gave
them power over the business OF great
towns ana cities and over great classes OF
investment-a power which no Persian sa-
trap or Roman pro-consul was ever trusted
with. lie concluded by saying that the
true policy of the senate was to recommit
the bill.
MIR. sherman OF ONO favored recommit-
ting the bill to have it Invested of some of its
ambiguous and Objectionable features. lie
thought there was great danger that the
section as to long and short-hauls would de-
stroy the export trade of the country. 1t
might, for instance, divert the tea trade,
winch found It's course from Asia to Europe
by the transcontinental railroads, to other
routes-like the Suez, the Cape Horn, the
fanama, or the CANADIAN route.
Mr.. Edmunds claimed that as to the long
and short-hau section the conference com
mlttee had merely changed the phraseology
OF the Dill as passed by the senate, but had
not changed its substantial tenor or effect.
lie defended also the section against pool
ing, which he said was simply another
phrase for the combination of corporate
monoples. Forebodings had always APP
peared when, in this or any other country,
the legislative power had been appealed to
TO reduce admitted evils as applied TO corpo-
rations. If any of them were realized in
thls case congress could pToVlae remedy
MI Aidrlch OF hhode lsland argued that
wnie the lourth secuon ana not mean
UNIFORM rale per ION per hlie, III dld mean
UNIFORM rate per ton per statlon ana lie
Illustrated ms argument WIN the ana OF an
immense diagram representing the New
YORK Cehtral railroad between New YORK
ana 6u11alo, showing the stail0ns az which,
ne Canned me rates OF 1relght would be
cohtroiIed ny the through ana by the local
rate: Inc most deleterlous eject OF me
section would DE 10 eXciude from the
markers OF the worlu me farm products OF
Missouri Kansas ana Nebraska.
MI Morrlll sMd ne had reached a con-
clusion That 1t was his duty to vote to re-
commit the bill. 1t was bill which, prac-
ideally, nobody wanted, but which everybody
intended to vote Tor. He was satisfied that
the effect of the fourth section would be to
increase the rates OF freight for long hauls,
and possibly those for short hauls also. His
Judgment was that if this bill should pass
unamended there would not be single new
railroad built in this country until the eX-
pertinent of this legislation had been tested
Its effect on the Central and Union Pacific
railroads would be such that the govern
ment might as well give up the idea of col
lectlng the indebtedness OF those companies
tolt.
Mr.. ingalls, OF Kansas favored the bill
put ne thought the long and short-haul and
pooling provisions would amount to little
practically. There We're other matters in
the bill more fatally defective than the
fourth and fifth sections. He regretted that
ne had to vote for the bill and he thought
there were good many other senators II
D